No quick fix in Afghanistan

Last week Barack Obama announced a new strategy for Afghanistan that he believes addresses the fundamental realities of the problem – including the rather belated American realisation that Pakistan is integral to achieving even a remote resemblance to stability. The attacks in Lahore today illustrate once again the need for a comprehensive regional solution in south Asia. But does the president's vague public strategy hit the mark?

The most glaring problem with the proposed plan is that it continues to ignore the realities of development and military action. The White House argues that development assistance to Pakistan will help strengthen the state. The same has been said about Afghanistan. Research indicates that economic assistance and development do reduce internal state conflict and decay. However, development timelines stretch for decades, not days, weeks and months.

Military operations, however, are gauged on a much shorter timeline. Part of the problem in Afghanistan has been that development has been militarised. Development objectives are seen as a necessity to advance the political military objectives. This is problematic. Take Pakistan for example. On the one hand Obama wants to develop his way to stability; on the other, he continues to use predator drone strikes against insurgent forces. These strikes may kill insurgents, but they also inflame Pakistani public opinion against the US, thus ultimately undermining the development agenda.

All of this falls victim to a third timeline, of course: that of the US electoral cycle. Obama wants results in time for congressional mid-term elections which are just two years away. If he is smart, he will continue to lower expectations because in two years the west will be lucky if we can manage the status quo in south Asia, never mind improve it. All of this does not bode well for a war that is already seen as a failure within most Nato countries. The stakes in the region, however, could not be higher. What then should the president focus on in the coming months?

One hopes the granularity of detail in the plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan, often referred to as AfPak for short, is much higher than what the public heard last week. But even if it is, the administration has not really grasped the fundamental problem with a military-cum-development strategy for the region. The big lesson to take away from AfPak is that to prevent such an occurrence elsewhere, we need to locate and address problems today.

As such, the Obama team must really look beyond simply trying to "fix" Afghanistan. The administration would be smart to institute a commission, possibly headed by the vice president, Joe Biden, to review how the US engages the world. The stovepipes of the Pentagon, the state department and the much neglected US agency for international development are quite frankly no longer sufficient. Washington needs to redress its commitments and development agenda to the world, because the US cannot afford to wage war in a number of theatres to shore up weak and failing states such as Afghanistan.

As for the current debacle, the fact that the US is actually providing leadership is a good start. The Bush administration failed to lead in Nato and failed to lead in Afghanistan. So a renewed focus on what Nato should be doing globally and specifically in Afghanistan is welcome. That said, perhaps one of the best developments would be the recognition that Nato cannot do it alone and a regional plan within which Nato plays a role is most desirable.

Of course, these means other organisations, principally the UN, need to step up to the plate, which has not been the case. Some real leadership from the weak UN secretariat is in order. Nato can certainly play a role in helping to professionalise the Pakistani military, in training Afghan and Pakistani forces and in developing trust between the Pakistani and Indian militaries, but it cannot enforce the panoply of development goals in the region that Obama would like to enact. Nato has yelled for more partners over the last six years, but they have not been forthcoming.

Finally, the US should take a cue from its northern neighbours and enunciate a strategy that is sustainable and achievable. This started last week, but it needs to be repeated and reinforced time and time again. The focus should be on training Afghan forces, on strengthening local government in Afghanistan, improving AfPak relations, regional political reconciliation and finally improving humanitarian standards. The onus, as the Canadians decided, should be on creating a situation in which the status quo can be maintained. Focusing on these five objectives is the best plan. Western militaries, the US included, cannot stay in Afghanistan engaged in current operations indefinitely, so Obama needs to look at how he can get more American and Nato allies out in the next five years without damaging regional stability. That is a benchmark for success, and one that we could do with hearing a great more detail about.

Sign up for the Guardian Today

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.